if you think the argument isn't meaningful, your woefully ignorant of a big portion of mac sales. the laptops only have one button adn I'm sure as hell not carting around a mouse to make up for it. its a hold over from 25 years ago when most people didn't grow up on computers. if in 10 years macs are still using 1 button mice, then the only reason people would find right clicking difficult is because (unfortunately) mac somehow became a human interface standard(not UI, I mean actual hardware interface).
I've never had a problem explaining right clicking to 60 and 70 year olds. I think you should learn that if people know nothing about computers, first teach them what the lingo refers to. hold up a mouse and explain which button does a left click and which does a right click. sometimes a little diagram with a print out for them to keep near by will help more than you giving them a mac mouse and then teaching them to hold down a button on the keyboard while clicking.
of course, you can take a left handed teacher aside later and tell them how to set up a mouse for a left handed person so that you are using your index finger for the main click.
if I want to delete something from my windows computer all I do is hit shift + delete followed by enter. the default is always yes in my experience. so all I have to do is be told shift + delete does it. it's gone for good.
if I"m not sure, I hit delete then enter. this is definitely faster than a 1 handed, 2 key combo(which both mac and windows share). if I want, I can turn off the prompt to get even faster. The best part is I have a quick method(as fast as a regular delete, almost) that can permanently delete files i don't want anymore. even better, once in the recycle bin, I can select my file and just hit delete again and it knows I probably want to just wipe the file out, so it asks.
now with a mac, if I hit command + delete, the file goes to my recycle bin. great. but then if I just want to permanently delete 1 file, I have to open my recycle bin and then there still isn't a logical way to select one file for permanent deletion. This is because the only other relevant short cut I've seen is command + shfit + delete which empties the entire bin and the only option is to empty the recycle bin.
but the thing I hate most about my mac is that when I highlight a file(generally using the keyboard) and hit enter, it doesn't f'ing open. it tries to rename the file. do the devs at apple really think people rename files more often than opening them? and worse, its the same with apps. that is just pure, unadulterated stupidity. for something like renaming a file, command+enter would be sensible. the mac just cries for me to stay on the mouse at all times. I'm sure I can change this default behavior, but defaults(especially with the mac aura) should be sensible. I can almost understand the delete methodology, but not this one.
yeah, I'm typing on my windows desktop wtih my mac laptop sitting next to me. I hate the little issues with each system. but some of the ones on the mac I just can't find any good explanation for.
maybe. god seems very different today then, allowing all those things to pass. but then what about luke 19:27 where jesus says to bring those who will not submit to his teachings before him and kill them? of course, you could just say it was a command to his disciples. I'm betting you've also chosen not to do this while choosing to follow other instructions from Jesus (i.e. love thy neighbor, the story about not destroying the village now because it will happen in the end times, etc.).
you may call it an understanding of the language, but when it comes down to it, its your personal interpretation as to whether or not you should do something you now find morally reprehensible but is called for in the bible.
granted, the new testament does a lot better of staying away from things we consider reprehensible in modern day life but even it is not without its statutes you may wish to call limited commands to only a few people.
Of course, I take the easy way out and quote many laws put down in the old testament because it is full of actions and commands that (hopefully) most wouldn't follow if asked to do.
As literature, the Old testament is written as a direct account of 2 things: the history of the Israelites and the direct commands of god to the Israelites. The New Testament is written as a myriad of things: the life of Jesus of Nazareth, allegorical stories, new commands from god, and several other smaller points dealing with morality.
And as soon as you decide to take the bible as just a literary work, then you take the leisure to do what people do today, throw out anything that doesn't conform with modern interpretations of what "should be moral" (which is a long, slippery slope where we could argue about what is morality, so let's not for now). As a person reading the bible, you(not you in particular...) may not want to admit it, but you should come right out and just say that even if the bible says "god said for me to do X", I will ignore it as a literary device at the consideration of what I consider acceptable today.
am I disgusted by the call to murder, rape, enslave, and do other things today that we consider brutal and inhumane? only to the extent that there are people that throw this book around as something that should be taken literally and that actually gives commands from god.
For example, why do people take the 10 commandments or genesis any more litterally or figuratively (or more applicable today) than they take the commands of god set down in other old testament books? Why are the rules of men being the center of the household that everyone else is subjugated to still so strongly ingrained when slavery has become disgusting? these are rhetorical questions to think about when you read the bible.
by the way, my question about what those groups slated to be killed did wrong was a rhetorical(I'm betting you knew that) one as the parent had said those slated for death had done evil things and that the death penalty was dealt out for such actions. My question was just to point out that lots of death called for was for no crime in particular as laid out in the bible.
the purpose of these posts was to point out a fundamental thing that most people never want to come to grips with : every religious text has absolutely no message beyond what you decide to apply to them. Your post nicely (and more straight forwardly) points this out. And if that is all it is, its foolish to try and post and say "this is what the bible says". Those who do inevitably make themselves look foolish.
There are two possibilities though with the bible. it is literal(in which case what I said is actually a scathing commentary on the insanity that must have gripped who ever wrote it) or it is literary. In the latter case, the above applies.
did you even look at the assignment(its a few links down in the story)? it says(rough quote):
this is a free writing assignment write for a specific period of time never stop writing even if you have you write "I don't know what to write" write what comes to your mind do not censor your self or correct any mistakes
The teacher basically side, write a stream of consciousness essay for x amount of time and then hand it in. The start is a reference to a green day song.
I remember doing these. they are incredibly tough to do unless you have the ability(as this kid does obviously) to not censor anything you are thinking and just write. A lot of times, just crap comes out(like a lot of his essay, its available to read online) but sometimes you get some great thoughts that just fall into place. I was a miserable failure at this.
read it. They basically quotes the first two lines as a reason to arrest him(and the very last 8 words). when you actually sit down and read the entire thing, it is exactly what the assignment asked for.
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the Lord your God has commanded you.
either god said make them your slaves or your whores. you can choose, but it is his direct command to you as a christian. Deuteronomy - 20, 10-17. So god definitely endorses slavery and probably rape as you can translate it as "eat the plunder of your enemies". And I'm not sure, but what did the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, etc ever do? nothing. they were in the wrong place according to this god and therefore should die. You are commanded to kill all non christians/jews that live in the holy land by your god. It is your inheritance.
Christians just love to ignore what they are commanded to do by the direct word of god(and never "un-commanded" by Jesus") and claim interpretation. its pretty darn straight forward. Don't defend the bible by saying it's a misinterpretation by everyone else. You'll be a lot more intellectually honest (a rarity outside of religion as well, so its not a bash on being religious) if you just admit you don't believe in a lot of what the bible says and have no intention of ever doing it.
but remember, if you decide to follow the commands of god and go the holy land, don't forget to kill the cattle(it's my favorite line in the entire bible:-))
you're right. but to be happy that they die or wish bad things upon them for it makes you a bit disturbed. to wish it on someone who is supported a widely held belief in the US(yeah, lots of people dont believe in piracy or free and easy copying for any reason..) is really just wishing your opponents weren't there. that is a dangerous mentality because its your opponents in an argument that will show you more about who you are than anything else.
Re:Now there's the Slashdot I know and love!
on
Jack Valenti, Dead at 85
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
in the same way that new laws benefits some groups to the detriments of others(global warming regulations), he did his job. You may disagree with him, but to consider him vermin for taking a different stand than you on an issue(he isn't a public official, it isn't his job to try and do what will make the majority happy) is basically the mindset of dictators and mass murderers, not participants in a democracy.
Your rights haven't been breached by him. what the law allows has changed. It happens all the time and some people are on the losing end.
if she needs 4 av/anti-spyware programs then your room mate is just computer illiterate, it's not a question of accepting something for a safe browsing experience.
tell her to get rid of all her anti spyware and anti virus programs and just get AVG which will work more than well enough. I've had it on computers for the last couple years and never had a problem with either spy ware or a single virus.
Its a common warning with any AV program that installing it with another AV program installed can cause system instability. don't blame an operating system for pure ignorance of a user. Would you blame apple if I was stupid enough to try and install and windows copy of MS office and then complained it didn't work?
the ethnic Muslims that were the targets of the genocide were ethnic Albanians. its why I said that.
Now, if you want to call the Nuremberg trials an international court system(as was implied by the GP) then you would have to ignore the fact that no person put on trial was part of a country that signed such a treaty. as that was inferred by the GP, I merely said that as an international court, to say the US wanted to apply the rules for its own gains and benefits is a foolish thing to assert because there were no gains.
Now, just as the US has forced others to comply with international laws, any country that wants to have some US person put on trial can force the US to do it in exactly the same way..... I'm not saying its fair to the little guy but then again, that wasn't the point of any of those institutions.
because I'm sure the Jews in Europe, Chinese or Koreans in East asia, or the ethnic Albanians in Serbia would never call for some form of court to hold people to crimes. no, it was the US because the US had so much to gain in any of those circumstances.....
the second can be used safely by 100% of people. the first and third can be used safely by almost all women.
and by the way, you do have the right to shoot certain people in the back. One would be an escaped felon deemed a hazard to society. the other would be someone trespassing on your property in certain states.
actually, there are several forms of birth control that are 100% effective (beyond just the option of not having sex). Its a myth that they aren't. Now, there are many forms of birth control that will fail when you don't use them properly, but then that is your fault again.
but then even things on the list don't match that. something like the apple airport is meaningless as it had almost no impact on the wireless market. I actually never heard of apple's networking gear until about 2005 and I never heard a single person in my life say apple was the company that brought wireless networking to the forefront.
I also find it odd iTunes made the list as well as Napster. Napster basically created the entire market for downloadable music. All apple did with iTunes was provide a place to pay for music, one of many that was spurred into development by the rise and fall of Napster. my point isn't that iTunes is undeserving of credit for being the online music store today. My problem is taking one market that is still in its infancy and basically giving it two spots on the top 50 list.
And of course, if you are going to credit someone with realizing an idea like selling movies or music online, you probably have to credit Enron for trying with its internet services arm(which had at one time a deal with Blockbuster to sell movies over broadband). They were the first to attempt implementation(though it did fail).
the diversity of the US points out that the US can lead the world in scientific endeavors while having a large portion of its society ignorant to that very science. its not hard when you have the differences in culture and location between Alabama, California, and Massachusetts.
the exact quote I was replying to was:
"The difference is that the USA aspires to be a world leader in almost every field. Compared to other western countries, the USA certainly has the most religious influence on politics and daily life. The high-tech profile and the importance of religion looks somewhat strange in the eyes of other industrialized/high-tech countries."
Second of all, it is not possible for anyone to do all the experiments and gather all the evidence to indicate any complex theory is correct.
buddy, after this line, you should have stopped. no scientist will ever call any theory correct. all theories are models that accurately(to a certain level of experimental precision) describe what will be your physical observation when you do 'x'. Now,theories have evidence to support them by making unique predictions that other theories do not and then having those predictions be born out in an experiment.
now with science, you only need to base what you think on what others have said to the extent you do not wish to recreate the entire body of human knowledge. the main difference is that with the bible, you will only ever have what another person has said. To give a more specific example, I have at least 3 distinct choices I can make about Jesus Christ. 1) he is the some of Jehovah as his disciples have said, 2) he is a prophet of Allah, one of a long line of prophets leading up to Muhammad, the last prophet, or 3) that he is a Bohdisattva who, after achieving enlightenment, fabricated a more easily believable tail for those far from enlightenment to start them down the correct path. All three have equal evidence supporting them, hearsay. One may give greater weight to the story given by Jesus's disciples simply because they were in close proximity to him, but that does not make much sense simply because the oldest copy of a gospel is from about 160 years after Jesus died.
Now take a scientific case, carbon dating of organic materials. choosing to what extent you wish to recreate previous science, I can find various amounts of organic material from different time periods and measure the concentration of C-14. I can also do experiments in the lab and measure empirically the decay rate of C-14. I can do this in one of many ways and check for consistency with previous data on the decay rate of C-14(to check for consistency in this rate for the last 100 years).
I can then choose whether or not to apply this decay rate to C-14 over all of history or not or I can limit myself to a certain number of years that the precision of my experiment lends to using. Now, I can gather various organic material from different sites to check concentrations for C-14 over time and see if 1) concentrations of C-14 are the same for all organic material of a given age and 2) if the data lends credence to the belief that the concentration of 'new' organic material 1000 or 10,000 years ago is the same as it is today. Once I have shown 1 and 2 to be correct(if I do), I can then go search for organic material which is similar to other materials but can be shown through the decay in the concentration of C-14 is older than 10,000 years(really I only need to do ~6,000 years to show the lack of consistency in a literal reading of the bible). Now at this point, you can merely show that the concentration of C-14 is x, and it is up to the reader on how to interpolate the data. but given the other data behind C-14 dating and whether or not it has held accurate for dated human remains of the last 3000 years(marked graves help in this) lends credence to the hypothesis that this object is probably more than 6000 years old. of course, you can reject this, but then it will be up to you to show evidence as such. If your net evidence is saying that what scientist 'y' said was influenced by his agenda, you have basically ignored the mountain for the grain of sand.
Now, this was just a series of experiments to show that object x may be older than 6000 years. it neither requires a belief in a complex theory nor basis in the hearsay of 1 particular scientist(or any subgroup of scientists). now, there may exists a more complex over arching theory that can take all these observations and predict them in a more fluid manner, but that is irrelevant to the facts presented. Complex theories are not required to study radioactive decay. The complex microscopic theories are required to understand mechanisms of radioactive decay but the mechanism is unimportant to the conclusion that object x is older than a certain interpretation of the bible says it should be.
one thing you don't mention that I only recently started thinking about was video and image searches(actually searching in the video or image for key words or maybe in time, actual video clips).
if it becomes a process that can be automated through a search algorithm, though time consuming and computationally expensive, would people start to feel that it is reasonable for Google to do a search through youtube of possible infringement and require any video that gets uploaded to be compared against such a database? I bring up google because I had heard they were attempting to make this technology a reality.
the Christian religion supposes awareness after death and therefore once you die you will know(or not care) if there is a Christian god. as most popular religions are similar in their supposition of consciousness after death, most religions' gods have there existence proved or disproved to you at death.
a bit old, but this shows evangelicals are still about 2/3 of the catholic population. now as loudest and more arrogant goes, that's a different matter...
it probably looks strange because unlike almost every other major country, the US is hardly 1 demographic(the only other country like this is England in my opinion). India, China, S. Korea, Japan, are all very homogeneous countries with India being the least so(though, as high tech development in that country is limited to two or 3 places, the diversity of the entire country is unimportant).
It wouldn't look nearly as strange to Europe if they realized that the US is larger than the combination of England, Spain, France, Germany and Italy. Its about par if you add in Portugal. Now look at the diversity across those countries and see if your surprised that people get arrested for disturbing the peace when handing out religious flyers at a gay pride meeting in england while abortion remains a very hotly debated issue in Portugal(and still, I think, illegal though there is a movement to change that).
Now, take out the UK as a country with its own incredible diversity as I said above, and you can then add in about 6 smaller European countries. And still, the land area of those countries would be trivial in comparison to the US. Distance definitely breeds different opinions on issues.
The real problem is people try to talk about the US in generalization because those same generalizations work well in a country with a much more homogeneous population(for example, the influence of the roman catholic church in Italy cannot be compared to the influence of religion in the US simply due to the diversity of Christian beliefs in the US ranging from roman catholics to southern baptists to Mormons to far more liberal groups).
with people dying, depends if there is a good Samaritan law in your state.... I think. I'm not sure if there are other laws which could apply.
granted, I just looked at youtube's front page for probably my first time ever and nothing jumped out as infringing. the most watched video page is most likely automatically generated so it falls under the auspices of the rest of the website.
I'm not trying to troll, but just to throw it out there:
I thought the GP was trying to say that the safe harbor shouldn't hold in this case. if the argument is about whether or not the safe harbor provision should be applied, you can't really argue points by saying they are currently legal due to the safe harbor provision, can you?
I have a mac for my laptop and a pc for my desktop and I see no difference in the quality or usability of my day to day applications.
now, final cut pro is a great piece of software, but I'm no hobbyist video editor so I don't care. I have always found safari inferior to firefox. quicktime is far inferior to vlc(supported video types, options for use). office software is again the same. so what everyday software are you talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
if you think the argument isn't meaningful, your woefully ignorant of a big portion of mac sales. the laptops only have one button adn I'm sure as hell not carting around a mouse to make up for it. its a hold over from 25 years ago when most people didn't grow up on computers. if in 10 years macs are still using 1 button mice, then the only reason people would find right clicking difficult is because (unfortunately) mac somehow became a human interface standard(not UI, I mean actual hardware interface).
I've never had a problem explaining right clicking to 60 and 70 year olds. I think you should learn that if people know nothing about computers, first teach them what the lingo refers to. hold up a mouse and explain which button does a left click and which does a right click. sometimes a little diagram with a print out for them to keep near by will help more than you giving them a mac mouse and then teaching them to hold down a button on the keyboard while clicking.
of course, you can take a left handed teacher aside later and tell them how to set up a mouse for a left handed person so that you are using your index finger for the main click.
you lexically challenged quasi-grammarian.
probably the funniest insult I've heard on slashdot in a while. The nerdiness knows to end! if I had mod points, you'd be getting them.
I don't follow:
if I want to delete something from my windows computer all I do is hit
shift + delete followed by enter. the default is always yes in my experience. so all I have to do is be told shift + delete does it. it's gone for good.
if I"m not sure, I hit delete then enter. this is definitely faster than a 1 handed, 2 key combo(which both mac and windows share). if I want, I can turn off the prompt to get even faster. The best part is I have a quick method(as fast as a regular delete, almost) that can permanently delete files i don't want anymore. even better, once in the recycle bin, I can select my file and just hit delete again and it knows I probably want to just wipe the file out, so it asks.
now with a mac, if I hit command + delete, the file goes to my recycle bin. great. but then if I just want to permanently delete 1 file, I have to open my recycle bin and then there still isn't a logical way to select one file for permanent deletion. This is because the only other relevant short cut I've seen is command + shfit + delete which empties the entire bin and the only option is to empty the recycle bin.
but the thing I hate most about my mac is that when I highlight a file(generally using the keyboard) and hit enter, it doesn't f'ing open. it tries to rename the file. do the devs at apple really think people rename files more often than opening them? and worse, its the same with apps. that is just pure, unadulterated stupidity. for something like renaming a file, command+enter would be sensible. the mac just cries for me to stay on the mouse at all times. I'm sure I can change this default behavior, but defaults(especially with the mac aura) should be sensible. I can almost understand the delete methodology, but not this one.
yeah, I'm typing on my windows desktop wtih my mac laptop sitting next to me. I hate the little issues with each system. but some of the ones on the mac I just can't find any good explanation for.
maybe. god seems very different today then, allowing all those things to pass. but then what about luke 19:27 where jesus says to bring those who will not submit to his teachings before him and kill them? of course, you could just say it was a command to his disciples. I'm betting you've also chosen not to do this while choosing to follow other instructions from Jesus (i.e. love thy neighbor, the story about not destroying the village now because it will happen in the end times, etc.).
you may call it an understanding of the language, but when it comes down to it, its your personal interpretation as to whether or not you should do something you now find morally reprehensible but is called for in the bible.
granted, the new testament does a lot better of staying away from things we consider reprehensible in modern day life but even it is not without its statutes you may wish to call limited commands to only a few people.
Of course, I take the easy way out and quote many laws put down in the old testament because it is full of actions and commands that (hopefully) most wouldn't follow if asked to do.
As literature, the Old testament is written as a direct account of 2 things: the history of the Israelites and the direct commands of god to the Israelites. The New Testament is written as a myriad of things: the life of Jesus of Nazareth, allegorical stories, new commands from god, and several other smaller points dealing with morality.
And as soon as you decide to take the bible as just a literary work, then you take the leisure to do what people do today, throw out anything that doesn't conform with modern interpretations of what "should be moral" (which is a long, slippery slope where we could argue about what is morality, so let's not for now). As a person reading the bible, you(not you in particular...) may not want to admit it, but you should come right out and just say that even if the bible says "god said for me to do X", I will ignore it as a literary device at the consideration of what I consider acceptable today.
am I disgusted by the call to murder, rape, enslave, and do other things today that we consider brutal and inhumane? only to the extent that there are people that throw this book around as something that should be taken literally and that actually gives commands from god.
For example, why do people take the 10 commandments or genesis any more litterally or figuratively (or more applicable today) than they take the commands of god set down in other old testament books? Why are the rules of men being the center of the household that everyone else is subjugated to still so strongly ingrained when slavery has become disgusting? these are rhetorical questions to think about when you read the bible.
by the way, my question about what those groups slated to be killed did wrong was a rhetorical(I'm betting you knew that) one as the parent had said those slated for death had done evil things and that the death penalty was dealt out for such actions. My question was just to point out that lots of death called for was for no crime in particular as laid out in the bible.
the purpose of these posts was to point out a fundamental thing that most people never want to come to grips with : every religious text has absolutely no message beyond what you decide to apply to them. Your post nicely (and more straight forwardly) points this out. And if that is all it is, its foolish to try and post and say "this is what the bible says". Those who do inevitably make themselves look foolish.
There are two possibilities though with the bible. it is literal(in which case what I said is actually a scathing commentary on the insanity that must have gripped who ever wrote it) or it is literary. In the latter case, the above applies.
did you even look at the assignment(its a few links down in the story)? it says(rough quote):
l ocal/doc46323cf53fd2a594795423.txt
this is a free writing assignment
write for a specific period of time
never stop writing even if you have you write "I don't know what to write"
write what comes to your mind
do not censor your self or correct any mistakes
The teacher basically side, write a stream of consciousness essay for x amount of time and then hand it in. The start is a reference to a green day song.
I remember doing these. they are incredibly tough to do unless you have the ability(as this kid does obviously) to not censor anything you are thinking and just write. A lot of times, just crap comes out(like a lot of his essay, its available to read online) but sometimes you get some great thoughts that just fall into place. I was a miserable failure at this.
here is the text:
http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2007/04/27/news/
read it. They basically quotes the first two lines as a reason to arrest him(and the very last 8 words). when you actually sit down and read the entire thing, it is exactly what the assignment asked for.
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the Lord your God has commanded you.
either god said make them your slaves or your whores. you can choose, but it is his direct command to you as a christian. Deuteronomy - 20, 10-17. So god definitely endorses slavery and probably rape as you can translate it as "eat the plunder of your enemies". And I'm not sure, but what did the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, etc ever do? nothing. they were in the wrong place according to this god and therefore should die. You are commanded to kill all non christians/jews that live in the holy land by your god. It is your inheritance.
Christians just love to ignore what they are commanded to do by the direct word of god(and never "un-commanded" by Jesus") and claim interpretation. its pretty darn straight forward. Don't defend the bible by saying it's a misinterpretation by everyone else. You'll be a lot more intellectually honest (a rarity outside of religion as well, so its not a bash on being religious) if you just admit you don't believe in a lot of what the bible says and have no intention of ever doing it.
but remember, if you decide to follow the commands of god and go the holy land, don't forget to kill the cattle(it's my favorite line in the entire bible:-))
you're right. but to be happy that they die or wish bad things upon them for it makes you a bit disturbed. to wish it on someone who is supported a widely held belief in the US(yeah, lots of people dont believe in piracy or free and easy copying for any reason..) is really just wishing your opponents weren't there. that is a dangerous mentality because its your opponents in an argument that will show you more about who you are than anything else.
in the same way that new laws benefits some groups to the detriments of others(global warming regulations), he did his job. You may disagree with him, but to consider him vermin for taking a different stand than you on an issue(he isn't a public official, it isn't his job to try and do what will make the majority happy) is basically the mindset of dictators and mass murderers, not participants in a democracy.
Your rights haven't been breached by him. what the law allows has changed. It happens all the time and some people are on the losing end.
if she needs 4 av/anti-spyware programs then your room mate is just computer illiterate, it's not a question of accepting something for a safe browsing experience.
tell her to get rid of all her anti spyware and anti virus programs and just get AVG which will work more than well enough. I've had it on computers for the last couple years and never had a problem with either spy ware or a single virus.
Its a common warning with any AV program that installing it with another AV program installed can cause system instability. don't blame an operating system for pure ignorance of a user. Would you blame apple if I was stupid enough to try and install and windows copy of MS office and then complained it didn't work?
just so you know...
g enocide.htm
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/bosnia_
the ethnic Muslims that were the targets of the genocide were ethnic Albanians. its why I said that.
Now, if you want to call the Nuremberg trials an international court system(as was implied by the GP) then you would have to ignore the fact that no person put on trial was part of a country that signed such a treaty. as that was inferred by the GP, I merely said that as an international court, to say the US wanted to apply the rules for its own gains and benefits is a foolish thing to assert because there were no gains.
Now, just as the US has forced others to comply with international laws, any country that wants to have some US person put on trial can force the US to do it in exactly the same way..... I'm not saying its fair to the little guy but then again, that wasn't the point of any of those institutions.
because I'm sure the Jews in Europe, Chinese or Koreans in East asia, or the ethnic Albanians in Serbia would never call for some form of court to hold people to crimes. no, it was the US because the US had so much to gain in any of those circumstances.....
IUD, tubes tied, the shot.
the second can be used safely by 100% of people. the first and third can be used safely by almost all women.
and by the way, you do have the right to shoot certain people in the back. One would be an escaped felon deemed a hazard to society. the other would be someone trespassing on your property in certain states.
actually, there are several forms of birth control that are 100% effective (beyond just the option of not having sex). Its a myth that they aren't. Now, there are many forms of birth control that will fail when you don't use them properly, but then that is your fault again.
but then even things on the list don't match that. something like the apple airport is meaningless as it had almost no impact on the wireless market. I actually never heard of apple's networking gear until about 2005 and I never heard a single person in my life say apple was the company that brought wireless networking to the forefront.
I also find it odd iTunes made the list as well as Napster. Napster basically created the entire market for downloadable music. All apple did with iTunes was provide a place to pay for music, one of many that was spurred into development by the rise and fall of Napster. my point isn't that iTunes is undeserving of credit for being the online music store today. My problem is taking one market that is still in its infancy and basically giving it two spots on the top 50 list.
And of course, if you are going to credit someone with realizing an idea like selling movies or music online, you probably have to credit Enron for trying with its internet services arm(which had at one time a deal with Blockbuster to sell movies over broadband). They were the first to attempt implementation(though it did fail).
the diversity of the US points out that the US can lead the world in scientific endeavors while having a large portion of its society ignorant to that very science. its not hard when you have the differences in culture and location between Alabama, California, and Massachusetts.
the exact quote I was replying to was:
"The difference is that the USA aspires to be a world leader in almost every field. Compared to other western countries, the USA certainly has the most religious influence on politics and daily life. The high-tech profile and the importance of religion looks somewhat strange in the eyes of other industrialized/high-tech countries."
Second of all, it is not possible for anyone to do all the experiments and gather all the evidence to indicate any complex theory is correct.
buddy, after this line, you should have stopped. no scientist will ever call any theory correct. all theories are models that accurately(to a certain level of experimental precision) describe what will be your physical observation when you do 'x'. Now,theories have evidence to support them by making unique predictions that other theories do not and then having those predictions be born out in an experiment.
now with science, you only need to base what you think on what others have said to the extent you do not wish to recreate the entire body of human knowledge. the main difference is that with the bible, you will only ever have what another person has said. To give a more specific example, I have at least 3 distinct choices I can make about Jesus Christ. 1) he is the some of Jehovah as his disciples have said, 2) he is a prophet of Allah, one of a long line of prophets leading up to Muhammad, the last prophet, or 3) that he is a Bohdisattva who, after achieving enlightenment, fabricated a more easily believable tail for those far from enlightenment to start them down the correct path. All three have equal evidence supporting them, hearsay. One may give greater weight to the story given by Jesus's disciples simply because they were in close proximity to him, but that does not make much sense simply because the oldest copy of a gospel is from about 160 years after Jesus died.
Now take a scientific case, carbon dating of organic materials. choosing to what extent you wish to recreate previous science, I can find various amounts of organic material from different time periods and measure the concentration of C-14. I can also do experiments in the lab and measure empirically the decay rate of C-14. I can do this in one of many ways and check for consistency with previous data on the decay rate of C-14(to check for consistency in this rate for the last 100 years).
I can then choose whether or not to apply this decay rate to C-14 over all of history or not or I can limit myself to a certain number of years that the precision of my experiment lends to using. Now, I can gather various organic material from different sites to check concentrations for C-14 over time and see if 1) concentrations of C-14 are the same for all organic material of a given age and 2) if the data lends credence to the belief that the concentration of 'new' organic material 1000 or 10,000 years ago is the same as it is today. Once I have shown 1 and 2 to be correct(if I do), I can then go search for organic material which is similar to other materials but can be shown through the decay in the concentration of C-14 is older than 10,000 years(really I only need to do ~6,000 years to show the lack of consistency in a literal reading of the bible). Now at this point, you can merely show that the concentration of C-14 is x, and it is up to the reader on how to interpolate the data. but given the other data behind C-14 dating and whether or not it has held accurate for dated human remains of the last 3000 years(marked graves help in this) lends credence to the hypothesis that this object is probably more than 6000 years old. of course, you can reject this, but then it will be up to you to show evidence as such. If your net evidence is saying that what scientist 'y' said was influenced by his agenda, you have basically ignored the mountain for the grain of sand.
Now, this was just a series of experiments to show that object x may be older than 6000 years. it neither requires a belief in a complex theory nor basis in the hearsay of 1 particular scientist(or any subgroup of scientists). now, there may exists a more complex over arching theory that can take all these observations and predict them in a more fluid manner, but that is irrelevant to the facts presented. Complex theories are not required to study radioactive decay. The complex microscopic theories are required to understand mechanisms of radioactive decay but the mechanism is unimportant to the conclusion that object x is older than a certain interpretation of the bible says it should be.
one thing you don't mention that I only recently started thinking about was video and image searches(actually searching in the video or image for key words or maybe in time, actual video clips).
if it becomes a process that can be automated through a search algorithm, though time consuming and computationally expensive, would people start to feel that it is reasonable for Google to do a search through youtube of possible infringement and require any video that gets uploaded to be compared against such a database? I bring up google because I had heard they were attempting to make this technology a reality.
but I bet what he left out was:
.....
the existence of a CHRISTIAN GOD is
the Christian religion supposes awareness after death and therefore once you die you will know(or not care) if there is a Christian god. as most popular religions are similar in their supposition of consciousness after death, most religions' gods have there existence proved or disproved to you at death.
http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/US_2000 .asp
a bit old, but this shows evangelicals are still about 2/3 of the catholic population. now as loudest and more arrogant goes, that's a different matter...
it probably looks strange because unlike almost every other major country, the US is hardly 1 demographic(the only other country like this is England in my opinion). India, China, S. Korea, Japan, are all very homogeneous countries with India being the least so(though, as high tech development in that country is limited to two or 3 places, the diversity of the entire country is unimportant).
It wouldn't look nearly as strange to Europe if they realized that the US is larger than the combination of England, Spain, France, Germany and Italy. Its about par if you add in Portugal. Now look at the diversity across those countries and see if your surprised that people get arrested for disturbing the peace when handing out religious flyers at a gay pride meeting in england while abortion remains a very hotly debated issue in Portugal(and still, I think, illegal though there is a movement to change that).
Now, take out the UK as a country with its own incredible diversity as I said above, and you can then add in about 6 smaller European countries. And still, the land area of those countries would be trivial in comparison to the US. Distance definitely breeds different opinions on issues.
The real problem is people try to talk about the US in generalization because those same generalizations work well in a country with a much more homogeneous population(for example, the influence of the roman catholic church in Italy cannot be compared to the influence of religion in the US simply due to the diversity of Christian beliefs in the US ranging from roman catholics to southern baptists to Mormons to far more liberal groups).
with people dying, depends if there is a good Samaritan law in your state.... I think. I'm not sure if there are other laws which could apply.
granted, I just looked at youtube's front page for probably my first time ever and nothing jumped out as infringing. the most watched video page is most likely automatically generated so it falls under the auspices of the rest of the website.
I'm not trying to troll, but just to throw it out there:
I thought the GP was trying to say that the safe harbor shouldn't hold in this case. if the argument is about whether or not the safe harbor provision should be applied, you can't really argue points by saying they are currently legal due to the safe harbor provision, can you?
which applications would those be?
I have a mac for my laptop and a pc for my desktop and I see no difference in the quality or usability of my day to day applications.
now, final cut pro is a great piece of software, but I'm no hobbyist video editor so I don't care. I have always found safari inferior to firefox. quicktime is far inferior to vlc(supported video types, options for use). office software is again the same. so what everyday software are you talking about?
dell.....
its where my work gets them from...